Posted on 11/20/2015 8:29:49 AM PST by thackney
You keep wanting to make discussions about me. They are not. I’m not relevant to the topic.
You want to call names, throw insults instead of addressing the topic.
How can you ask if someone will keep to the schedule and budget, without having a schedule or a budget?
Another mouthy commenter who doesn’t bother to do real background research.
Donald Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt his unwavering patriotism and devotion to our vets and brave warriors. The proof of this is literally poured in concrete and has been posted on FR about 30 times since last August.
It is about you and the lack of intelligence evidenced in your comments and questions. Lurkers see them and are put off by the low information content, illogic and unprofessional approach. When someone injects pushback on you, the lurkers are gratified to see at least some discipline of critical thinking thrown into the mix to elevate the intellectual rigor of the forum.
He did. See the article's screen-captures of his 2012 tweets.
I hate those damned wind farms, not just because they kill birds but because they use tax money to subsidize people buying a stupid "product" at a false "market" price, the same with solar.
They look kinda cool, but are stupid stupid stupid -- and the only reason they exist is because of the environmentalist hoax. I love that Trump considers environmentalism a hoax, but hate that he doesn't state first and foremost that government subsides for windfarms are a bad idea MAINLY because a) government meddling in free markets this way is wrong and b) the whole rationale for windfarms in the first place is based on a hoax.
“Real background research”? Everything I need to know about Donald Trump emanated from his own lips months ago.
Regardless, given that my post said nothing to suggest I was questioning his “patriotism and devotion to our vets,” maybe your response was meant for some other “mouthy commenter.”
Very true -- Cruz supported it back in 2014, when it was hundreds of refugees, not thousands and tens of thousands.
And Donald Trump supported bringing Syrian refugees into the US as lately as Sept 8 of this year, due to the "unbelievable humanitarian problem."
He backed off a bit the next day, coincidentally *wink wink* the same day that Ted Cruz urged not to resettle these immigrants in America.
So he said he can appreciate the concept of subsidies for such -- but not for a country with the debt we have. I'd say he answered admirably.
(From the article) "Trump: noted that it can be hard for wind to be competitive in energy production particularly when prices for fossil fuels are so low, so 'you need subsidies.'"
Cripplecreek: It sounds like he's saying that oil is cheap and wind can't compete so let's subsidize it.
That is exactly what it sounded like to me, too.
LOLOLOL!! Oh my goodness gracious!!!!! {^)
If lurkers are like me, after awhile they just skip your posts because they veer from the real subject at hand. :^)
But, if you want to give the Tedster credit for opposing resettling a year after he favored it, fine. Most of us know exactly what Trump would do, and I think that's the difference. There is concern that Cruz is still a product of the DC system, no matter how conservative he is. At any rate, it's not going to matter. Cruz isn't going to be the nominee, Trump is, and it won't be close. And Trump will be president. And it won't be close.
Your comment in #54 went to the man’s integrity. His integrity is impeccable and has been proven beyond any doubt on hundreds and hundreds of posts on the internet.
Those who engage in forum postings without checking facts are ‘mouthy commenters’ similar to people that engage their mouths before engaging their brains.
Your comments were without any research of value. You contributed nothing but ‘mouthiness’.
No, he’s saying he understands that you in the wind sector need subsidies to compete when oil is low and there is a place for subsidies—but not in a country that has our debt.
To me, that’s not too difficult to process. He’s showing his understanding of their issues and concerns, but he has clearly put government subsidies for them off limits in the current environment.
Make yours a double!
Just remember, so far-—on every prediction I’ve made about Trump since June-—I’ve been dead on. And I’ve made a lot. If you think Cruz will win, I’d bet you a double. Except the last guy on FR I “won” a bet with disappeared and never paid up.
The subject is Donald Trump’s integrity of which there is ample proof that he has it in spades.
Unintelligent people can skip whatever they choose, but then they remain stuck on stupid.
There is also ample proof that Trump has a history of leaning moderate to left. But you can skip it if you choose.
If you go back further with Cruz, you'll see that he has been defending the rights of Christians at least as long and just as ardently. Where is Donald Trump's warning that gay marriage opens the door wide to persecuting Christians, as Ted Cruz was warning way back in July of 2013?
Sure, there's concern that Cruz is a product of the DC system. People should also understand that there is concern that for 21 of the past 26 years, Donald Trump donated as much to Democrat politicians as he did to Republican politicians -- more to Democrats, actually -- and only started donating exclusively to Republicans (including Romney, who was and remains an amoral functional leftist Democrat) five years ago.
I know -- "He's a businessman, he did it as the cost of doing business."
So tell me another Republican candidate in whom it wouldn't be major cause for concern if for 80 percent of the past 26 years, he had donated MORE to the opposition party than to his own party in order to advance his bottom line?
Understand and embrace the TRUTH that Donald Trump materially helped advance the rise to power of Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and other leftist tyrants, for his own (and his shareholders') financial gain. Harming the cause of liberty was for him less important than profiting himself and his shareholders.
Accept it, because it is the truth. You warn about "the Tedster" as a DC system guy, what about "The Donald" as an amoral apolitical profiteer at the denigration of liberty?
Sincere patriot that Donald Trump may be (and I believe he is all of that), truth is truth. Ignoring it is folly and and exceedingly bad risk.
Here is another concern, and it is absolute: The ONLY reason most people in the U.S. have ever even heard of Donald Trump is because of SEVEN YEARS of self-promotion on a very large scale through a hit TV show that crafted a PR image of Donald Trump as a brassy brilliant billionaire businessman real estate mogul who is a genius. SEVEN YEARS, up until 2013.
It has a lot to do with why people have so much confidence and faith in Donald Trump -- brilliant marketer and showman that he is, it is a "brand" he has carefully crafted for himself. Fall for it at your own risk.
My concerns about Ted are merely that, concerns. I have no evidence to say what he would do, any more than anyone else. But I do think that the "insider" tag is one of the main reasons that Cruz's numbers remain low. Anyway, we'll see. So far every prediction I've made about Trump since June has pretty much been on target---where he would be after each debate, what would, and would not "hurt" him.
And I think he'll wrap it up not long after Super Tues and sometime after that Cruz will be the veep.
Much of what I say is true? Factually, in that post what isn't opinion IS ALL TRUE, as far as I know. It is my opinion that Trump is a sincere American patriot with the best of intentions -- I know some Cruz supporters who think Trump is only in it for the money; which is true of Trump is up in the air.
As for predicting Trump's rise ... considering that for the recent seven years he had a TV show built on constant positive self-promotion that only went on hiatus in 2014 and which Trump put on hold in 2015 because of the campaign ... yeah, Trump's numbers are big and his image strong. Not that hard to predict.
God bless and keep you, FRiend.
“Who cares? He’s going to build a wall and stop this invasion.”
Make a GREAT tag-line. If you don’t mind, I’ll start using it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.